Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
arstechnica.com
Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
1–10 of 191 posts
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#2Incredible that companies like Apple (Mac), Atari (ST) and Commodore (Amiga) weren't able to fully capitalise on their leading position in GUI based OSes of the time, which were miles ahead of both MS and IBM.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#3> IBM licensed Commodore’s AREXX scripting language and included it with OS/2 2.0.
I find this hard to believe, given that Rexx was developed by IBM.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#4Great read. In the end, it seems like a classic failure to resolve the innovator's dilemma. IBM decided that the future of computing would revolve around mainframes because they liked mainframes, not because that's where the facts led them. And ultimately they paid the price for it.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#5This was a great article, thanks for posting!
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#6If anyone wants an insider's view, here's a Usenet post from one of the early Microsoft employees, Gordon Letwin:
http://gunkies.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin_OS/2_usenet_post
Somewhere in the Usenet archive is Gordon trolling the OS/2 users for weeks (or months?) on end. I can't remember the exact details, but he had a bet with several people that Windows would have multitasking, or that OS/2 wouldn't have some sort of multitasking before Windows. The bet was to fly the winner to any city of their choice and buy them dinner.
The discussions were quite heated and it was particulary memorable because he was one of the first 12 employees at Microsoft.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#7If you liked this article, you should read Show Stopper. It's out of print, but there are ample used copies via Amazon.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#8If anyone wants an insider's view, here's a Usenet post from one of the early Microsoft employees, Gordon Letwin: http://gunkies.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin_OS/2_usenet_post Somewhere in the Usenet archive is Gordon trolling the OS/2 users for weeks (or months?) on end. I can't remember the exact details, but he had a bet with several people that Windows would have multitasking, or that OS/2 wouldn't have some sort of mul…
[deleted]
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#9If anyone wants an insider's view, here's a Usenet post from one of the early Microsoft employees, Gordon Letwin: http://gunkies.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin_OS/2_usenet_post Somewhere in the Usenet archive is Gordon trolling the OS/2 users for weeks (or months?) on end. I can't remember the exact details, but he had a bet with several people that Windows would have multitasking, or that OS/2 wouldn't have some sort of mul…
Letwin was also the guy for OS/2 on the Microsoft side while the alliance lasted. His Inside OS/2 is a detailed account of trying to squeeze a real multitasking, protected memory OS into a '286:
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-OS-2-Gordon-Letwin/dp/155615117...
The cover photo is also classic.
Re: Half an operating system: The triumph and tragedy of OS/2
#10If anyone wants an insider's view, here's a Usenet post from one of the early Microsoft employees, Gordon Letwin: http://gunkies.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin_OS/2_usenet_post Somewhere in the Usenet archive is Gordon trolling the OS/2 users for weeks (or months?) on end. I can't remember the exact details, but he had a bet with several people that Windows would have multitasking, or that OS/2 wouldn't have some sort of mul…
Letwin was also the guy for OS/2 on the Microsoft side while the alliance lasted. His Inside OS/2 is a detailed account of trying to squeeze a real multitasking, protected memory OS into a '286: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-OS-2-Gordon-Letwin/dp/155615117... The cover photo is also classic.
"Foreword by Bill Gates"